This application relates generally to financial transactions. More specifically, this application relates to monitoring of the usage of stored-value instruments.
In a modern commercial environment, there is an array of different financial products that consumers have available to them in executing financial transactions. Some of the more prevalent forms of transactions may be characterized as credit transactions, debit transactions, and stored-value transactions. Each of these transactions differs in the manner in which access to funds is provided to the consumer. For example, credit transactions are supported by funds provided by a creditor to a customer. The principal example of such credit transactions are credit-card transactions in which the creditor issues a card to the customer that the customer may use as a presentation instrument to identify a credit account. When the transaction is executed, funds are drawn against the credit account, which usually has a pre-established credit limit, to support the transaction.
Debit transactions may also make use of a presentation instrument. The source of funds for a debit transaction is specifically identified with an account that holds the funds, and this account is usually a demand-deposit account maintained at a financial institution. As such, the funding of the account various over time as deposits and withdrawals are made from the account in response to receipt of wages, paying bills, etc. Debit transactions are typically completed within a short time, i.e. funds are transferred from the account to the control of a merchant or other party within a few minutes or less. In this respect, they tend to differ from check transactions, which take longer because of the time needed to process the checks. But the principles upon which the transactions are executed are otherwise generally similar.
A traditional stored-value transaction is one that uses funds that have been specifically set aside and associated with a presentation instrument so that they may be used to support a transaction. In most cases, such stored-value instruments are anonymous in that the funds are associated only with the instrument and not with any particular person. This has had the advantage that such instruments may be easily transferred and they find wide utility as gift cards. This gift aspect is frequently reinforced by imposing restrictions on the merchant with whom transactions may be executed with the set-aside funds. Implementations with such restrictions are sometimes referred to in the art as “closed-loop” implementations. They are distinct from “open-loop” implementations in which the stored-value instruments are more widely accepted at a variety of different merchants. In a typical open-loop implementation, the stored-value instrument is branded with a bank association logo, such as Visa®, MasterCard®, or Discover®. The instruments can then be used essentially whenever those brands are accepted.
The anonymity of traditional stored-value transactions has created certain difficulties in actual implementation. First, a major concern with all types of financial transactions is the potential for fraud to be committed. Attempting to limit the techniques available for engaging in fraudulent transactions is a significant preoccupation with those who design and implement financial-transaction schemes. Second, the lack of information tying use of the stored-value instrument to any individual makes it difficult to extract meaningful sales data since conventional demographic techniques cannot be applied. Third, it is sometimes desirable to change the character of the stored-value program accessed by the stored-value instrument. For example, products in which a gift card has the potential to be later upgraded to a reloadable card are popular. While a conventional stored-value system permits the pool of available funds only to be depleted as the instrument is used, a system that uses a reloadable card functions in manner more similar to debit transactions. That is, the pool of available funds may increase as deposits are made to “reload” the stored-value account. A reloadable stored-value system nonetheless still differs from a full debit system because restrictions may still remain on how the funds may be accessed. Cash withdrawals are typically not available, for instance, with the instrument still being useful only for purchases of goods or services at merchants. Such restrictions may still be imposed with reloadable stored-value systems in both closed- and open-loop implementations.
There is accordingly a general need in the art for methods and systems that provide for enhanced monitoring of the usage of stored-value instruments.